Search

Search this site:

FAQ

What is the role of the Thai monarch?

As a constitutional monarch since 1932, the King of Thailand is above partisan politics and the administration of government. He reigns but has never ruled.
The Thai Constitution provides that as Head of State, the King exercises his power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts. In other words, laws passed by Parliament and appointments of those in high offices (e.g. President of the National Assembly, Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet) must be signed by the King and countersigned by those authorised before taking effect, while the Courts try and adjudicate cases in the King’s name. In addition, besides being an upholder of all religions, the King also holds the position of Head of the Thai Armed Forces and has the prerogative to create titles and confer decorations.

Why do Thais love their King?

The monarchy has been central to the Thai identity for over 700 years. The bond between the Thai people and this principal institution is deeply rooted in the history of Thai nationhood itself. Nevertheless, it is also the person of the King himself and what he has done which has earned him and the monarchy the love and respect of Thais.
His Majesty the King has been an inspiration for the Thai people, always having their welfare at the uppermost of his mind. For over sixty years, he has been working hard for the well-being of his subjects in keeping with his Accession Oath to “reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people.”
Since early in his reign, His Majesty the King travelled to all corners of Thailand, reaching the remotest, most dangerous parts, talking to the poor and vulnerable, to understand their ways and problems and find ways to help them. In this regard, he has initiated more than 4,000 Royal Development Projects, in such areas as irrigation, farming, drought and flood alleviation, crop substitution, public health, distance learning, employment promotion and traffic alleviation. These have touched the lives of many Thais – particularly farmers. He has also invented various tools and techniques which have been used for rural development – such as rain-making, soil erosion prevention and water purification. The sufficiency economy philosophy he has conceptualised – which emphasizes moderation, responsible consumption and resilience to external shocks – also provides guidance for individuals and business alike on sustainable living and undertakings as well as developing immunity against economic shocks.

Has the Thai monarchy involved itself in politics?

In recent years, there have been attempts by political groups to draw the monarchy into the political fray. Nevertheless, the fact remains that His Majesty the King has always taken great care to remain above partisan politics. He has never taken sides or involved himself in politics. The few interventions the King made, notably in 1973 and 1992, which decisively ended bloodshed on Bangkok’s streets after clashes between soldiers and protesters led to loss of life, were judicious humanitarian interventions rather than political ones.

Has the king given his implied blessing to coups staged in the name of stability and clean government?

The King is above partisan politics. That the King granted audiences to or signed Royal Commands appointing military leaders to administer state affairs after they had taken control is consistent with his apolitical role and did not amount to giving his “blessing” to such action.
In 2006, the King learned of the coup on 19 September only after the armed forces had taken control. The royal audience was granted at the request of the leaders of the armed forces to report on the situation and on actions taken based on their assessment of the situation. The purpose of the Royal Command appointing Leader of the Council for Democratic Reform was to endow the Council with a mandate and authority required to maintain peace and order and to provide the basis for the issuance of orders as necessary. It does not connote support.

What is the lèse-majesté law in Thailand?

The so-called lèse-majesté law is not a special law but is part of the Thai Criminal Code (Section 112). The Criminal Code regards lèse-majesté as an offence against the security of the state because the monarchy is one of Thailand’s principal national institutions.
As such, a person who finds a suspected lèse-majesté act may, on his or her own, set in motion legal prosecution by lodging a formal complaint. The police must then gather and investigate the facts and evidence to establish the case before this can be submitted and screened by the public prosecutor. Only thereafter may the public prosecutor decide whether to bring the case before the court. All steps undertaken are done in accordance with the due legal process, including the right to appeal once found guilty and the possibility of being granted royal pardons when the case is final.

Does the lèse-majesté law undermine democracy and limits freedom of expression?

Thailand upholds people’s rights to freedom of speech and expression; such rights are guaranteed by the Thai Constitution. The lèse-majesté law is aimed neither at curbing these rights nor the legitimate exercise of academic freedom including the debates about the monarchy as an institution.
There is nonetheless a boundary between expressing one’s opinions and making accusations. The right to freedom of expression is not without its limits. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognised, the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression may “be subject to certain restrictions” as provided by law and necessary: 1) to uphold the rights or reputations of others; or 2) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals. Moreover, the exercise of such right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities.” Those exercising it also have an obligation not to infringe upon the rights and unfairly tarnish the reputations of others.
What the lèse-majesté law does is to give protection to the royal family – to the monarchy – in the same way that libel law protects ordinary people. The difference is that because the monarchy is a neutral institution which is above partisan politics and political conflict, and is revered by the Thai people, the law does not provide for the monarchy to take legal action against people or defend itself against allegations.

Why has the lèse-majesté law become an issue of criticism? Has it been used as a tool for persecution of political opponents?

In recent years, the current political situation has become such that conflicting political groups have attempted to draw the monarchy into the political fray. This has led to a number of charges of lèse-majesté.

What has been done to alleviate the afore-mentioned problem?

The Government recognised that in recent years, there have been cases where the law has been enforced in such a way that may not be in line with its purpose of protecting the dignity of the monarchy and in such a way that may inadvertently affect people’s freedom of expression.
In this regard, the Prime Minister has established a special advisory panel, comprising ex officio senior officials from agencies concerned, to serve as a mechanism to advise the police and the public prosecutor on merits of cases related to lèse-majesté under their purview. The panel will take, among other things, the presence of intention to harm the institution of the monarchy and the importance of people’s constitutional right to freedom of expression as important considerations. Furthermore, the panel will study and consider how to make further improvements and promote public understanding about the law with a view to reducing instances leading to lèse-majesté complaints.

Who can amend the law?

The law concerning lèse majesté has been enacted not by any demand from those it aims to protect. His Majesty the King is known not to be averse to criticism and to have some discomfort with this law. However, he is not in a position to change it. In Thailand, legislative power lies entirely with the Parliament, which exercises the will of the Thai people.

There have been concerns over possible implications that royal succession might have on political stability. Is there any cause for such concerns?

The issue of Royal succession is governed by both the Palace Law on Succession B.E. 2476 (1924) and the Constitution. As such, there are clearly stipulated rules and procedures as to what will happen should the need arise. Relevant provisions in the current Constitution also lay out the specific roles of the Privy Council, National Assembly and Cabinet.
The sections on the monarchy in Thailand’s constitutions – be it the 1997 Constitution or the present 2007 Constitution – have remained substantively unchanged since 1991. Under these laws, it is His Majesty the King’s prerogative to appoint His Heir to the Throne. Once the King makes such a proclamation, the line of succession is clear. In this connection, His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn was proclaimed Crown Prince, or in other words Heir to the Throne, in December 1972. There is thus no cause for uncertainty and no warranted basis for speculation otherwise.

Is it accurate that the Thai monarchy is the world’s richest monarch?

The notion originated from Forbes’ special report on the World’s Riches Royals published on 20 August 2008 and in subsequent years, which ranked the King of Thailand first on the list. The report is inaccurate because Forbes includes, in its calculation of the King’s personal assets, those lands and other assets belonging to the Crown Property Bureau and not at the King’s personal disposal. For some other monarchs, Forbes considered such assets as belonging to the nation.
Under the Royal Assets Structuring Act of 1936, the assets associated with Thai monarchy are divided into three categories: (1) personal assets of the monarch; (2) assets belonging to the monarchy as an institution, such as palaces, administered by the Bureau of the Royal Household; and (3) assets belonging to the monarchy as an institution administered by the Crown Property Bureau under a board chaired ex officio by the Minister of Finance with no less than four other committee members including the Director-General of the Crown Property Bureau.